Slashdot Mirror


DOW Threatens Verio, Verio silences activists

An anonymous reader writes "A parody site hosted on Thing.net upset DOW Chemical. DOW is now using the DMCA to threaten Verio, Thing.net's provider, into silencing the activists. Read press release for more details."

92 comments

  1. Does this surprise anyone by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2

    Given what happened to FatWallet over the Black Tuesday adverts?

    What the hell is DOW claiming under the DMCA? The name? Give me a break. I hope there's such a HUGE stink over this that it permanently tarnishes DOW and Verio's reputations. Fscking corporate slimeballs.

    --
    Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    1. Re:Does this surprise anyone by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2

      From Dow's press release (at http://www.dowethics.com/r/environment/freedom.htm l)
      Wow. dowethics. Given the circumstances, wouldn't that be an oxymoron?


      "The provider, Verio, graciously complied with our letter citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Not only did they shut down Dow-Chemical.com, but as a good corporate citizen, they agreed to shut down an entire network (Thing.net) of websites many of which, while unrelated to dow-chemical.com, appear to serve no commercial purpose, being dedicated to the unproductive analysis and critique of society and corporate behaviour.

      We applaud the courage of Verio in taking this act, as it sends a strong signal to the "artists, activists," and other blatantly non-commercial users of Thing.net. That message can be stated simply: Corporate America will defend its right to Free Speech on the internet rigorously. Verio ensured that this message was understood by giving Thing.net a 60-day eviction notice following the network's restoration to the internet. This is the kind of justice which Dow can afford, and which we hope will become a model for the future of the internet."


      So, apparently DOW now would like to think of themselves as net critics and that since Thing.net is hosting sites that "serve no commercial purpose, being dedicated to the unproductive analysis and critique of society and corporate behaviour" then everything's ok and we should all just grab out ankles now..

      "Corporate America will defend its right to Free Speech on the internet rigorously." Oh, ok. Since those using Thing.Net aren't a corporation with a bunch of high-priced lawyers they don't get to use free speech? Thanks a lot, assholes.

      This is the kind of justice which Dow can afford, and which we hope will become a model for the future of the internet." Translations: We sikked our hybrid lawyer-dogs on Verio and they put out quicker than a Freshman cheerleader at the Senior prom. We 0wnz them now. We will 0wnz j00 too.

      Oh yeah, I got first post.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    2. Re:Does this surprise anyone by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, you just proved Dow's case. You were misled by the parody site, beliveing it to be an official statement of Dow Chemical. That was Dow's whole complaint in the first place.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Does this surprise anyone by MImeKillEr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow. That's pretty fucked up. Their site looks TOO much like Dow's.

      Dow may not have too hard a time proving their case. However, Thing.Net's owners *might* come out ahead on this. It's still a parody site -- even though there aren't any disclaimers stating as much. Certainly will be interesting to see where this goes...

      As for my getting roped in. All I can say is

      DOH!

      Thanks for pointing it out.

      Mental note: Consume at least TWO cups of cofee before posting comments to Slashdot in the morning...

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    4. Re:Does this surprise anyone by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      It's still a parody site -- even though there aren't any disclaimers stating as much.

      Where's the line between parody and fraud? If I said, "I'm Mimekiller and I think kiddie porn is awesome!" that could reasonably be construed as parody. It's fairly absurd, so only the most gullible person would believe it. But if I said, "I'm Mimekiller and I vote Democrat!" that's not obviously parody. It sounds perfectly reasonable, and if one didn't know that Mimekiller is a staunch Dewey Socialist, one might not think twice about that statement.

      These guys could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by calling their site "Dowe Chemical" or something.

      --

      I write in my journal
    5. Re:Does this surprise anyone by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2

      That's it. I'm SUING you.

      I'm going to hit /. with a DMCA and force them to give me your personal info.

      Not really, but I get your point.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    6. Re:Does this surprise anyone by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      "I'm Mimekiller and I think kiddie porn is awesome!"

      No, that would probably be slander/libel. Parody usually includes some aesthetic value.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    7. Re:Does this surprise anyone by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      Arg. You go this way, point go that way.

      My intent was to pick something so absurd that it would be obvious that it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Pick your own example. "I'm Mimekiller and I'm a six-foot-tall invisible rabbit." Whatever.

      But the larger point still stands, I think. Does parody include some aesthetic value? If so, who identifies it as such? Because, to me, the stuff we're talking about this morning just isn't funny. It's absurd, but just barely so, and not at all funny. Does that mean it's not parody?

      --

      I write in my journal
    8. Re:Does this surprise anyone by uncoveror · · Score: 2

      You might want to look up the word, satire. It is not always meant to be ha ha funny. Satire and parody are frequently political and preachy on porpose. The artists here are making a valid point about Dow Chemicals' irresponsibility, and callousness. There is nothing ha ha funny about it, nor is there supposed to be. The point of it was to make youi angry, or uneasy, and to educate. It works for that purpose. I would also like to point out that Dow could have avoided the very negative publicity they hope to avoid by ignoring such political message sites. Now more people than even before know that Dow is Union Carbide.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    9. Re:Does this surprise anyone by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      The artists here are making a valid point about Dow Chemicals' irresponsibility, and callousness.

      That has nothing to do with it. They've produced a web site, and are sending out press releases, in the name of Dow Chemical. Whatever your purpose, that's misrepresentation, defamation, and, at worst, fraud.

      If they'd created a web site for a fictitious chemical company that bears a striking resemblance to Dow, everything would be cool. But when they used the Dow name, and logo, and represented themselves as Dow to the press, they crossed the line.

      I would also like to point out that Dow could have avoided the very negative publicity they hope to avoid by ignoring such political message sites.

      Let me say it again. These guys sent a press release out through the newswire and through regular channels claiming to be Dow. It doesn't matter why they did it. They misrepresented themselves, and that's against the law.

      --

      I write in my journal
    10. Re:Does this surprise anyone by unitron · · Score: 2
      "But if I said, "I'm Mimekiller and I vote Democrat!"..."

      Dead giveaway. Real Democrats (and us anti-Republicans) can tell the difference between an adjective and a noun and vote Democratic, not Democrat, whereas Republicans always use Democrat when they should say Democratic because they want to make it a dirty word the same way that they did with the word "liberal".

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    11. Re:Does this surprise anyone by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      Real Democrats (and us anti-Republicans) can tell the difference between an adjective and a noun and vote Democratic, not Democrat

      Uh... seeing as how the only strictly grammatically correct word in that context would be an adverb-- "vote Democratically"-- we have to fall back to common idiom. When one is stumping, one says, "On November 4th, remember to vote McGuffin!" That's a noun, a proper noun to be precise. So saying "vote Democrat!" is the preferred idiom over "vote Democratic," unless you want to use the whole proper noun and say "vote Democratic Party!"

      In other words, you're wrong.

      --

      I write in my journal
    12. Re:Does this surprise anyone by unitron · · Score: 2

      I'm not wrong about the Republicans.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    13. Re:Does this surprise anyone by dodomeister · · Score: 1

      I hope there's such a HUGE stink over this that it permanently tarnishes DOW and Verio's reputations.
      You mean killing a website and its ISP does the job, whilst accidentally killing a city full of people failed to achieve that?

    14. Re:Does this surprise anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part did DOW have in the incident that is being parodied? Why are they even implicated?

      Everyone is directly involved with every atrocity/catastrophe that has ever occurred if you use degrees-of-separation to form the association.

      What would your response be if I were to create a parody site linking you to various hideous crimes? Something that would appear if someone were to Google your name before an employment interview.

    15. Re:Does this surprise anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go take a bath

    16. Re:Does this surprise anyone by dodomeister · · Score: 1

      If they'd created a web site for a fictitious chemical company that bears a striking resemblance to Dow, everything would be cool. But when they used the Dow name, and logo, and represented themselves as Dow to the press, they crossed the line.
      Let's get something right here.
      The problem is NOT that a single website by some artists got shut down, b'cause they might have infringed on copyrights, trademarks - you name it (and it's scary enough that parodies finally became a punishable offense).

      The real problem is that for shutting down one single website, a whole network of sites, email addresses and the likes got bulldozed.

      Let me give you an example: On the wall of your building you glue a poster with the DOW logo on it, some dead people from Bhopal and a snazzy quote from the fake press release. To make you get rid of the thing, DOW not even tries to sue you, but calls a nightwatchman of your landlord around midnight, gets no reaction, arrives with a couple of bulldozers, and as your building is surrounded by other building, they tear down a whole neighborhood to reach you and your defamatory ad.

      If in the same process, DOW damages a major museum, destroys a couple of artworks and smashes the letterboxes of some innocent bystanders, you still would maintain that DOW didn't overreact?

    17. Re:Does this surprise anyone by dodomeister · · Score: 1

      you probably mean: wash you mouth (and don't forget to wipe your brains clean)??

    18. Re:Does this surprise anyone by dodomeister · · Score: 1

      The Bhopal accident happened in a plant of Union Carbide.
      Union Carbide is now a part of DOW, and so are its executives and its shareholders.
      That's a pretty direct implication; and if DOW would stand up, say "we did it" and pay up, the implications to its shareholders would be pretty direct, too.

      It's not that somebody claimed that they produced Zyclon-B, the poison of the Nazi concentration camps (well, maybe they did, huh?). It's not that somebody claimed that using DOW products is what made Jeffrey Dahmer a cannibal (well, who knows?).
      And it's not like that every Anonymous Coward posting stuff on Slashdot is a paid propaganda agent of a worldwide conspiracy of chemical engineers (I didn't say that!).

      Just rest assured: the Bhopal plant really blew up, killed a lot of people and hasn't been an invention of some web artists setting up a parody site (just Google it).

  2. I don't know about these guys. by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.dowethics.com/r/environment/freedom.htm l

    They have that linked as "Dow's response" to the incident, apparently yet another parody site, but I was sure confused at first. I could see how someone could be misled to believe it was a real Dow site.

    These guys are pushing the line a little too far I think. The site looks a whole lot like an official site.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    1. Re:I don't know about these guys. by mcgroarty · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you look at the WHOIS, dowethics.com is allegedly owned by somebody in Bhopal, India, the very same location where Dow's Union Carbide subsidiary was responsible for killing thousands in an escelation of multiple chemical plant disasters through the 70s and 80s.

  3. Naaa, the DMCA will never be abused... by GeekWithGuns · · Score: 1

    IANAL (God I hate it when people start posts like that), but Wouldn't this be a great case to challenge the DMCA with? If all the facts are straight here then DOW Chemicals has enfringed on the first amendment rights of the person who wrote the parody. Bill of rights should proove that this law at least in this case should not be applied, but at best could make the DMCA unconstitutional.

    If that dosn't stir the pot, how about a lawsuit aganst Verio. The DMCA says that the ISP (in this case it should be Thing.Net must take down the material. DOW knew that Thing.Net would have complied only to allow the counter notice and reposting part of the DMCA to go into effect or just fired back with a "Liar, Liar, we have Lawyers too" letter since they specialize in activists sites. DOW chose wisely and picked the ISP's ISP and pretty much guaranteed that Thing.Net would have to bow to the pressure. And now Verio is cutting off Thing.Net in 60 days?!? The DMCA dosen't say anything about that! Get a lawyer and sue them to hell!

    --
    [End of diatribe. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...] - Larry Wall in Configure from the perl
  4. Free Speech by zietlow · · Score: 1

    From the Site http://www.dowethics.com/r/environment/freedom.htm l

    Corporate Freedom of Speech is one of our most precious Freedoms

    Now granted I didn't see the site (mirror anyone?) but what about Personal free speech? In this day and age of governemnt where there doesn't seem to be much for freedoms unless you invest a couple hundred thousand in your favorite politicians wallet. Why does DOW get free speech and they can threaten someone for exercising thiers?

    Was the company on Thing.net causing them harm, cutting into thier billions of dollars of profits for the year?

    --
    Slashdot # 199661 the number that's the same upside down and right side up
    1. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's the parody site. That's the whole problem Dow has with the parody site, is that it looks a whole lot like an official statement.

    2. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very little will be accomplished until we begin to recognize that corporations are not people and are not entitled to the same civil liberties that humans are. There is a small movement afoot:
      http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

  5. Re:Does this surprise anyone (UH) by iolaire_in_swe · · Score: 1

    Er... that's the PARODY site. :]

  6. Legal grounds by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2

    Before anyone stars foaming at the mouth about use of the Dow name (and even the look of their corporate page, which I didn't see the specific mention of) take a look at the following links:

    http://www.business2.com/articles/web/0,1653,9452, 00.html

    http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS .html

    http://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/

    http://overlawyered.com/topics/silicon.html

    --
    Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
  7. If one good thing could come of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If one good thing could come of this, it would be that everyone would stop and think about what might have happened eighteen years ago that Dow would like you to have forgotten. Dow's actions are presumably to try and stop this bad PR from resurfacing. It's something that's been lost to the public consciousness for a while now...

    Dow owns Union Carbide, responsible for killing thousands in Bhopal, India through multiple dangerous accidents in its chemical plants. Despite Dow putting a caring face on (the site is owned by Dow, though it isn't clear by looking at the main page), the aftermath continues.

    A fairly good summary of the event can be found here, although it doesn't quite reveal the way Union Carbide pretty much tried to ignore the Indian legal system, ignoring repeated summons, allegedly trying to abandon responsibility for the accident altogether.

    1. Re:If one good thing could come of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus fucking christ, dude. Ever heard the expression "the sins of the father?" Dow had no relationship with Union Carbide back then, so they shouldn't be blamed for anything now.

      What happened in Bhopal was a tragedy. But fucking get over it. The world has moved on.

    2. Re:If one good thing could come of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The people still suffering in Bhopal have not moved on, and Dow still hasn't made full restitution.

      Many are suffering needlessly and need aide, and Union Carbide hasn't made right under Dow's direction.

    3. Re:If one good thing could come of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People will always suffer, everywhere. Responsibility has limits. This morning I turned on my lamp next to my bed. When I did, light shone out and caused a startled bird to fly out of the tree next to my window. That bird flew out of the neighborhood and over the highway, where it startled a passing motorist. That motorist slammed on his brakes and the guy behind him plowed into his bumper at 80 miles an hour. The lawyer will be showing up at my door any minute with the papers naming me in the lawsuit. Because, dear god, if I'd only kept my lamp off this all could have been prevented.

      Bhopal is ancient history. Come join the rest of us in the 21st century.

    4. Re:If one good thing could come of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so if Starbuck's merges with Al-Quaeda (for whatever reasons), you would recommend we forget about this tragedy. But fucking get over it. The world has moved on.
      Yeah, sure.

    5. Re:If one good thing could come of this... by EvanED · · Score: 2

      However, your accident wasn't the result of about 4 or 5 entirely different things going wrong... for example, the two main emergency safeties were currently offline when the accident occured. The plant SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN OPERATION with even ONE of these safeties offline (imho), let alone both of them.

      NASA paid a couple million for the death of the Challenger Seven because they were *neglegent*. That is the difference; you were not neglegant in your example. Union Carbide was neglegant.

  8. DMCA? HUH? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can anybody dig up independent confirmation that this has anything at all to do with the DMCA? The RTMark press release mentions it in the context, "Dow was not amused, and sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) complaint to Verio, which immediately cut Thing.net off the internet for fifteen hours." But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    More importantly, the New York Times article on the subject (here), makes no reference at all to the DMCA, instead saying that "Dow's lawyers contacted Verio to complain that the site infringed on its trademarks, among other sins." If the DMCA were involved, I'm reasonably sure that the NYT article would mention it.

    If I had to take a wild-ass guess, I'd say that what probably happened is that Dow simply told Verio that they want the offending web site shut down, and possibly that the site was making unauthorized use of their trademarks or some such. Verio said to themselves, "On the one hand we have a bunch of activists who pay their bills, but who aren't a significant source of revenue for us. On the other hand we have Dow Chemical, a gigantic multinational corporation that could throw us a lot of money if we have a good relationship with them." And they made a business decision.

    If that's what happened, I really don't see a reason to get all up-in-arms. Yes, this is an inconvenience for the activists. But, if it happened the way I'm guessing, nobody did anything illegal, or even unethical.

    (Incidentally, the NYT article also says, "When [Staehle] called Verio to ask why his entire network had been unplugged instead of the sole offending site, he said, a Verio lawyer told him that the Thing had violated its policies repeatedly and that its contract would be terminated."

    The article goes on: "Verio had shut down part of the Thing once before. In 1999 the online toy retailer eToys.com asked a California court to stop an online arts group from using its longtime Web address etoy.com. The Electronic Disturbance Theater, a Thing client, staged a virtual protest by overloading the retailer's site with traffic during the holiday season. Verio blocked access to one of the Thing's computers until the protest site's owners agreed to take it offline."

    Sounds like Thing.net isn't merely the mild-mannered parody site it claims to be. Parody is one thing. Actual disruption is something else altogether. Though they're not commenting, maybe Verio had some really good reasons to do what they did.)

    --

    I write in my journal
    1. Re:DMCA? HUH? by Zapman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Verio [probably] said to themselves, "On the one hand we have a bunch of activists who pay their bills, but who aren't a significant source of revenue for us. On the other hand we have Dow Chemical, a gigantic multinational corporation that could throw us a lot of money if we have a good relationship with them." And they made a business decision.

      If that's what happened, I really don't see a reason to get all up-in-arms. Yes, this is an inconvenience for the activists. But, if it happened the way I'm guessing, nobody did anything illegal, or even unethical.

      I won't go into the rest of your post, which I thought was well and good. However, while I see the logic of your 'wild assed guess', I disagree with your statement that it's 'not unethical'.

      Say you have a mindspring.com account. On your personal web page, you post that 'bill gates of borg' icon that he's reputed to hate so much. He causes a letter to be sent to mindspring, and your account is revoked, using the same logic you just called 'a business decision'.

      This is precisely the kind of thing that power leads to, if it's not curbed. Look at the nobles of the middle ages. Not held accountable, they could kill anyone they wished without repurcussions. This is just a modern day version of that.

      We must protect fredom of speech (obviously keeping in mind the limits WRT slander and libel). We must we must protect those liberties.

      Now, if thing.net violated libel and slander laws, they get what is coming to them. If they didn't, then what happened is unethical, and should be illegal.

      --
      Zapman
    2. Re:DMCA? HUH? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um. Verio is a private company. (Well, they're publicly traded, but they're owned by private individuals. You know what I mean.) They are entitled to do business with whomever they please.

      Nobody went to these guys and said, "Hey, you can't say that." (At least, not yet.) Rather, Verio said, "If you wanna do that, get your connectivity somewhere else."

      Verio is completely and totally free to do that. Just because these guys have a Constitutionally protected right to say (nearly) whatever they want doesn't mean that any particular provider of services is obligated to do business with them.

      Let me give you a real-world for-instance. About six years ago I was working as a pre-sales engineer for a fairly major computer company. (You've heard of them.) Somebody came to us and said, "I want to build a web site, and I need a very powerful server to do it." I, along with the sales rep, talked to him, and he said, after some probing, that he wanted to get into the "adult entertainment" business. Basically he wanted to build a porn site.

      That's entirely legal. Nothing wrong with it, as far as the law is concerned. But the sales rep I was working with said to me, after the meeting, that he simply didn't want to do business with this guy. He had an opinion on porn-- not necessarily the same as mine, but I respected it-- and he acted accordingly. We never called the guy back, and we never returned any of his subsequent calls.

      Life is full of little decisions like that. Ours was made on moral grounds; the sales rep I was working with had a moral objection to porn. Verio's decision was probably made purely on business grounds. Everybody-- individual and corporation alike-- is entitled to make those decisions for themselves.

      I stand by my statement that what Verio did was neither illegal, unethical, nor wrong.

      Say you have a mindspring.com account. On your personal web page, you post that 'bill gates of borg' icon that he's reputed to hate so much. He causes a letter to be sent to mindspring, and your account is revoked, using the same logic you just called 'a business decision'.

      Get an account with another service provider. If you can't find one that will give you an account, take out a bank loan and start your own. If you can't start your own, then get your message out through another medium. Public access television. Letters to the editor. Flyers under windshield wipers. Whatever.

      Freedom of speech is not being affected here in any way.

      Not held accountable, they could kill anyone they wished without repurcussions. This is just a modern day version of that.

      Exaggerate much? Nobody has killed anybody. Let's get this back down to earth, okay?

      --

      I write in my journal
    3. Re:DMCA? HUH? by Zapman · · Score: 2

      As an asside, 'private company' generally means a company like google, owned by a small group of indivduals. Verio is a public company. It is owned by it's shareholders.

      Your example from your pre-sales day is a totally different world. Verio had already decided to do business with thing.net, and had written a contract to do so. You and this 'someone' had NOT started doing business. You're totally free to choose who to do business with. However, once you start, it depends on the contract.

      I very strongly believe that if you say (like in a contract) that you're going to do something, you need to follow through with it.

      As for your 'get an account with another service provider', sure that's possible. However, if BillG was really after you, and if all the service providors followed your logic, then you would be silenced, in the medium of the internet.

      As for the reference to the middle ages, it's something called an analogy. A story used to illustrate a point. Exageration? Maybe. However the nobles DID work quite hard to destroy opposition. Why do you think the French Revolution was so keen to have a free press? The nobles silenced many a newspaper. Sure, they could have gone back to writing the things by hand (the equivelent of you're suggestion that they should change medium), but that would have been much less effecient.

      --
      Zapman
    4. Re:DMCA? HUH? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      As an asside, 'private company' generally means...

      Yeah, did you see the thing I wrote up there inside parentheses? Thanks.

      Verio had already decided to do business with thing.net, and had written a contract to do so.

      And, undoubtedly, that contract included plenty of clauses describing conditions under which either party could terminate.

      However, if BillG was really after you, and if all the service providors followed your logic, then you would be silenced, in the medium of the internet.

      So? Try as I might, I can't get a network TV show. I'm effectively silenced in the medium of network television. Is this a free speech issue? No, of course not.

      As for the reference to the middle ages, it's something called an analogy.

      Actually, it's something called hyperbole. And something called wildly inapplicable. And something called a waste of breath.

      --

      I write in my journal
    5. Re:DMCA? HUH? by wolfgangsta · · Score: 1
      Thing.net is an ISP and not a parody site. The parody site was on a co-location server of one of our paying customers. Now, if Verio has a problem with the "Yes Men," they know damn well the IP address of their server and it would have be easy for them to block that address. Instead they choose to shut down the whole c-class net after leaving a message on our answering machine giving us 20 minutes to pull the plug on that machine.

      What did you say? "Parody is one thing. Actual disruption is something else?" Now, who is disrupting who here? Why is Verio cutting off service to 300 paying customers for 16 hours? What about their rights?

      As to your question about whether the DMCA was invoked: yes it was. The Verio legal department told me, that they are "required to terminate our contract because of repeat infringements of the Digital Milleneum Copyright Act."

      There you go.

      http://www.thing.net
      http://thing.net/switch
      http://secure.thing.net/backbone

    6. Re:DMCA? HUH? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      Instead they choose to shut down the whole c-class net after leaving a message on our answering machine giving us 20 minutes to pull the plug on that machine.

      According to Verio, Thing.net has been in violation of Verio's AUP for some time. Whether that's true or not is between you guys, but that's their opinion, and it explains why they shut you down.

      And, in all fairness, after they restored your connectivity and you asked for 3-4 months to transition to another provider, they did agree to give you 90 days before shutting you down for good, right? I'm not trying to say that they're right and you're wrong, but it's not quite accurate to imply that they're being completely unreasonable, either.

      Now, who is disrupting who here? Why is Verio cutting off service to 300 paying customers for 16 hours?

      The difference between a denial of service attack against a company that some people find to be politically unacceptable and a company's cutting off a customer that they claim is in material breach of their AUP should be blindingly obvious. You can't really put the two situations on the same level.

      As to your question about whether the DMCA was invoked: yes it was.

      Yes, I heard. Early this morning I asked for independent confirmation of the DMCA part, and I got it from a couple of different sources, including from Dow's lawyers. I appreciate your mentioning it, though.

      --

      I write in my journal
    7. Re:DMCA? HUH? by plagiarist · · Score: 1
      The difference between a denial of service attack against a company that some people find to be politically unacceptable and a company's cutting off a customer that they claim is in material breach of their AUP should be blindingly obvious. You can't really put the two situations on the same level.


      What denial of service attack? This is about a parody site criticizing a corporation, not about a denial of service attack. Dow's website was still up - it was parodied, not DOS'ed - but Verio responded by shutting down the Yes Men's parody site - *and* the sites of approximately 299 unrelated Thing clients. (Thing didn't do the parody, the Yes Men did.)

    8. Re:DMCA? HUH? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      One of the reasons Verio cited for shutting down the entire Thing network was a denial of service attack launched some time ago against etoys.com or etoy.com or whichever it was. There was a domain name dispute at the time, and somebody on Thing's network decided to do something about it by DOS'ing the company's site right before a big holiday.

      Verio's position is that Thing's network got cut off because of a pattern of repeated AUP violations, not just one incident. Straw that broke the camel's back, sort of thing.

      --

      I write in my journal
    9. Re:DMCA? HUH? by plagiarist · · Score: 1
      The article (I assume you are referring to the NYT one) didn't say that *Verio* cited that as a reason for shutting down Thing's network; the article's writer seems to have brought that up on his own. It seems clear that Verio's current actions have been provoked by the recent Dow parody, not an unrelated incident from 1999.


      Also, remember there are 2 shutdowns under discussion here: the impending termination of Thing's contract and the initial 16-hour shutdown of the *whole* Thing net after initial complaints about the Dow parody. The 16-hour shutdown doesn't seem to have to do with anything other than the Dow parody ... and that was what wolfgangsta was referring to when he said,

      What did you say? "Parody is one thing. Actual disruption is something else?" Now, who is disrupting who here? Why is Verio cutting off service to 300 paying customers for 16 hours? What about their rights?

    10. Re:DMCA? HUH? by dodomeister · · Score: 1

      The difference between a denial of service attack against a company that some people find to be politically unacceptable and a company's cutting off a customer that they claim is in material breach of their AUP should be blindingly obvious. You can't really put the two situations on the same level.
      No, you can't put it on the same level. One is a targeted political action (and you can argue about the means).
      The second is behaving like an 800 pound gorilla and waltzing over the rights of completely unrelated businesses. What problems do have Dow/Verio with an institution like PS1/MOMA?

    11. Re:DMCA? HUH? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      One is a targeted political action (and you can argue about the means).

      Look, I don't mean to delve into hyperbole here, but blowing up a busload of school kids has also been referred to as "targeted political action." The ends do not justify the means. The fact that a group of people has a political problem with a company doesn't give them the right to cause them harm by maliciously disrupting their means of doing business.

      The second is behaving like an 800 pound gorilla and waltzing over the rights of completely unrelated businesses.

      What rights? When you sign a contract with a service provider, you both agree to the terms. They agree to provide you with the service, and you agree not to violate their terms of use. If you violate their terms of use, you can and should be cut off, if the contract so stipulates, with no prior notice.

      This case has absolutely nothing to do with rights. It has to do with following the rules, and the consequences of not doing so. If you're going to break the rules, don't whine about the consequences.

      --

      I write in my journal
    12. Re:DMCA? HUH? by dodomeister · · Score: 1

      What rights?
      Good question.
      So if you can explain to me what the ISP (as in thing.net) and PS1/MOMA (as in highbrow cultural institution) and artists web sites (as in artists web sites) and my email account (as inm y private mail) have to do with DOW feeling underappreciated in their careful handling of the Bhopal aftermath by somebody who just happens to rent his web space on the same subnetwork - well, I'll be listening happily.

      If somebody violates the terms of use of your friendly freemail provider Yahoo!, would you still argue that the most sensible action would be to shut down Yahoo!?
      You know how many kiddie porn get's delivered via AOL accounts? Let's shut them down if one of their tech people doesn't react immediately to a call by you in the middle of the night ...

  9. I'm little unclear about the specifics... by RCO · · Score: 1

    As a few of you have already stated, I would like to know how they are using the DCMA on this. I mean yeah, I can see how DOW probably wouldn't like the parody, but if that's all it takes, the US Prison system is about to become the funniest place on earth with all the comedians that are about to be sent up. But as things are stated in this article, it sounds as if Things.net my have a case against Dow for the abuse of DCMA. The flip side of it is even if Dow is proven wrong, what are the odds that they will fix the situation, if history is any indication...

    --
    'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
  10. Are you kidding me!?! by DonFinch · · Score: 1

    Not only did they shut down Dow-Chemical.com, but as a good corporate citizen, they agreed to shut down an entire network (Thing.net) of websites many of which, while unrelated to dow-chemical.com, appear to serve no commercial purpose, being dedicated to the unproductive analysis and critique of society and corporate behaviour. We applaud the courage of Verio in taking this act, as it sends a strong signal to the "artists, activists," and other blatantly non-commercial users of Thing.net. That message can be stated simply: Corporate America will defend its right to Free Speech on the internet rigorously.
    So "anylsis of society" should not be protected under the 1st amendment according to Dow? And whats this about "non-commercial users". Apperently Dow chemical feels only those with billions of dollars should be allowed to speak their minds! Please tell me this PISSES YOU OFF!! of course this speech is blatantly non-commercial and unproductive analysis and critique of Dow FSCKED ideas of freedom, and therfore I should be shot and my corpse burned.

    --
    -- Insert wisdom here:
    1. Re:Are you kidding me!?! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Informative

      Read before posting. What you quoted is a "parody" site.

      See the problem?

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:Are you kidding me!?! by DonFinch · · Score: 1

      oops.... luser award right here

      --
      -- Insert wisdom here:
    3. Re:Are you kidding me!?! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      oops.... luser award right here

      No, no! That's exactly the point. You're an otherwise entirely reasonable and sensible person, and yet at first glance you were fooled into believing that this page belonged to Dow, and served as an official corporate communication from them. There's no shame in being fooled here; the people who put up that page went to great lengths to make it look completely authentic, even going so far as to put a copyright notice on it.

      This is precisely the point. Given that the parody nature of this page isn't remotely obvious, it seems that Dow has a very strong case against these guys. For defamation, at the very least, and possibly even for fraudulent representation.

      --

      I write in my journal
    4. Re:Are you kidding me!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Before we start calling these people names for stealing poor little Dow's image for a moment, let's look at what some other players are doing with other people's images:

      Item 1: In which a bunch of extremely poor peasants from all over the world "protest" the Earth Summit in Johannesburg: The Fake Parade

      Item 2: In which a host of "people" oppose scientific research that shows problems with biotechnology: The Fake Persuaders

      There are of course hundreds of other examples, some better known (the American Smokers' Alliance), some less.

      Finally this technique is being used in the right direction!!

    5. Re:Are you kidding me!?! by dodomeister · · Score: 1

      oops.... luser award right here

      No, no! That's exactly the point.

      rightly so; Parody, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, is:
      (Greek par"a song sung alongside another"), in literature, a form of satirical criticism or comic mockery that imitates the style and manner of a particular writer or school of writers ...

      Given that the parody nature of this page isn't remotely obvious
      If we really are ready to believe what the fake DOW press releases are telling us, it's not just DOW having a problem here. It's probably more a serious case of collective nuttery.

      In logos we trust!

  11. Bad misstep... by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 1
    I hope the parody site (whoever owns dowethics) hasn't made a stoopid mistake with the copyright notice at the bottom. Unless I'm wrong, they are not allowed to claim copyright by "The Dow Company" unless they own a registered trademark to that name (unlikely), and if they've falsely attributed the copyright they could lose their copyright to their parody page and be subject to hefty fines for their false claims.

    Losing copyright to the page would make defense of the page (as a parody) more difficult in several ways...

    Even if I was a lawyer, you would be foolish to believe I'm licensed to practice law in whatever jurisdiction you currently reside.

    --

    The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

  12. Dow - A Chemical Company on the Global Playground by Vryl · · Score: 2

    http://www.dowethics.com/r/Homepage/index.html

    Did you know?
    Dow is responsible for the birth of the modern environmental movement. In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring about the side-effects of a Dow product, DDT, on North American bird populations. Her work created a groundswell of concern, sparking the birth of many of today's environmental action groups. Another example of Dow's commitment to Living. Improved daily.

  13. Re:Dow - A Chemical Company on the Global Playgrou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a result of that book, 60,000,000 people have died from malaria since 1970, when DDT was banned.

    That's worse than Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot, combined.

  14. the letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LAW OFFICES
    HOWARD, PHILLIPS & ANDERSEN
    A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

    GREGORY D. PHILLIPS 560 East 200 South, Suite 300 Telephone: (801) 366-7471
    Direct Dial: (801) 366-7707 Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Facsimile: (801) 366-7706
    E-Mail: gdp@hpalaw.com

    December 3, 2002

    VIA EMAIL (abuse@verio.com; support@verio.com; dlthompson@verio.com; copyright@verio.com) and
    FACSIMILE (303) 708-2445

    Verio, Inc.
    8005 South Chester Street, Suite 200
    Englewood, CO 80112

    Re: DOW-CHEMICAL.COM

    Dear Verio:

    This law firm represents The Dow Chemical Company ("Dow") on intellectual property enforcement matters. I an agent of Dow authorized to act on its behalf.

    Dow has recently discovered that the operator(s) of dow-chemical.com (the "Website") is blatantly violating Dow's intellectual property rights. Dow provides this notification of infringement pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA"). The Website violates Dow's rights in several different ways:

    1. Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

    The Website displays numerous trademarks, images, texts and designs taken directly from Dow's website located at dow.com. This material is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without the express written authorization of Dow. A representative list of the addresses within the web site where Dow's trademarks, copyrighted images, texts and designs appear is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

    I declare in good faith that the use of the material referenced in Exhibit B is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent or the law.

    Accordingly, Dow requests that pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that Verio immediately cease to provide hosting services for this domain.

    2. Violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

    The domain name, dow-chemical.com, violates Dow's trademark rights by incorporating the world-famous and distinctive trademark Dow(R). The term Dow(R) together with its corresponding design trademarks or logos, are duly registered trademarks in numerous countries, including the United States. Use of these trademarks, or any confusingly similar variations thereof, without the express, written consent of Dow, violates state and federal law, is misleading to the public, and constitutes a misappropriation of the goodwill and reputation developed by Dow.

    The United States Congress has enacted the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which makes it unlawful for a person to register a domain name that incorporates the famous trademarks of another and provides for statutory damages in the amount of $100,000.00 per domain name against those who do so. See 15 U.S.C. 1117(d).

    3. Violation of the Lanham Act.

    The Website also violates Dow's trademark rights by displaying Dow's design trademarks and logos on the web site.

    The Website's content is defamatory to Dow. The operator(s) of the Website has issued a press release directing the media and the public to this site in an attempt to damage the reputation and tarnish the goodwill associated with Dow, its products and services. A copy of the press release is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The registrant of this domain has provided fraudulent and fictitious WHOIS information to conceal his/her identity. A complaint with ICANN has been filed to require that the registrant provide complete contact information.

    In addition to violating United Stated Federal Law, the Website is in violation of Verio's Acceptable Usage Policy ("AUP" ), which describes, in pertinent part, intellectual property violations as:

    "Engaging in any activity that infringes or misappropriates the intellectual property rights of others, including copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade secrets, software piracy, and patents held by individuals, corporations, or other entities. Also, engaging in activity that violates privacy, publicity, or other personal rights of others. Verio is required by law to remove or block access to customer content upon receipt of a proper notice of copyright infringement."

    Verio's AUP further provides that in cases of intellectual property infringement, defamation and other illegal activates that Verio will remove such content, as described below:

    "When Verio becomes aware of harmful activities, however, it may take any action to stop the harmful activity, including but not limited to, removing information, shutting down a web site, implementing screening software designed to block offending transmissions, denying access to the Internet, or take any other action it deems appropriate."

    The violation of Dow's invaluable copyrights is causing and will continue to cause Dow to suffer irreparable damage as long as the website remains operational. Therefore, Dow requests that Verio take the actions prescribed by the DMCA and its AUP by removing and disabling access to the Website.

    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information is accurate. Should you have any questions concerning Dow's position in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

    Very truly yours,

    Gregory D. Phillips

    Enclosures

    jlc:GDP

    cc: The Dow Chemical Company

    1. Re:the letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source, please?

    2. Re:the letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. If you doubt the letter's veracity, fucking get off your lazy ass and call Mr. Phillips yourself at (801) 366-7707. Or email him at gdp@hpalaw.com.

      Fucking lazy Slashdot cocksuckers.

    3. Re:the letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no source 'eh - nice try

    4. Re:the letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no brains 'eh - nice try

  15. Behold the power of a SLAPP suit! by uncoveror · · Score: 2

    This is a perfect example of a greedy corporation squashing free speech in the name of its lord and savior, the almighty dollar. The artists, called the Yes Men, hosted by thing.net were making a valid point with their biting satire, and adding a "this is a joke, duh!" disclaimer would detract from the icky feeling their satire was intended to evoke. If they can get a legal defense fund, this could be the test case to overturn the DMCA. It is more likely, unfortunately, that Thing.net will die, and this Slapp will be successful. That will be a tragedy. I would love to republish the materials in question, but I will use disclaimers if the Yes Men agree.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    1. Re:Behold the power of a SLAPP suit! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      This is a perfect example of a greedy corporation squashing free speech in the name of its lord and savior, the almighty dollar.

      Actually, it appears to be a perfect example of misguided souls, despite their good intentions, making unauthorized use of a company's legally protected trademarks, and getting their pee pee's smacked because of it.

      The artists, called the Yes Men, hosted by thing.net were making a valid point with their biting satire, and adding a "this is a joke, duh!" disclaimer would detract from the icky feeling their satire was intended to evoke.

      Valid point or not, it is not okay to use somebody else's trademarks without their permission. The message would have been just as clear without the malicious intent to deceive.

      If they can get a legal defense fund, this could be the test case to overturn the DMCA.

      The DMCA claim is only one part of the complaint against these guys. The complaint also cites the Anti-cybersquatting Protection Act ("dow-chemical.com") and the Lanham Act (illegal use of trademarks). Also, these guys issued a false press release in Dow's name intended to defame Dow publicly. But most importantly, everything these guys did, practically, was in violation of Verio's AUP.

      I would love to republish the materials in question, but I will use disclaimers if the Yes Men agree.

      Go right ahead. Wonderful thing about freedom of speech. Even if you're kicked off of one podium, you can always climb onto another.

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:Behold the power of a SLAPP suit! by dodomeister · · Score: 1

      Actually, it appears to be a perfect example of misguided souls, despite their good intentions, making unauthorized use of a company's legally protected trademarks, and getting their pee pee's smacked because of it.
      It's more like that an important corporate citizen didn't like Yes Men making funny faces. And as they couldn't reach out fast enough, they decided neither to sue the Yes Men nor asked their ISP thing.net for cooperation, but colluded with Verio to shut down the whole service of thing.net, maybe as some kind of a punitive measure.

      So DOW smacked the pee pee's of completely unrelated organisations, institutions and people like thing.net (as in carrier), PS1/MOMA (as in high brow museum), ARTFORUM (as in magazine), as well as several hundred users who were not even able to check their emails (not speaking about their web sites).

      Bluntly, this has been a legal Denial of Service attack against against thing.net with the malicious intent to disrupt their business.

    3. Re:Behold the power of a SLAPP suit! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      It's more like that an important corporate citizen didn't like Yes Men making funny faces.

      Funny faces? They sent out a press release with Dow's name on it, filled with false information and quotes, solely intended to defame Dow. It had nothing to do with raising awareness, it had nothing to do with calling attention. It was meant only to confuse people and to hurt Dow.

      There's a line. They crossed it. They have, in fact, crossed it repeatedly. They are suffering the consequences.

      Thing.net could have avoided this problem by taking care of their own problems. Since they didn't do so, when Dow brought the most recent offense to Verio's attention, Verio decided to act according to their policies.

      --

      I write in my journal
    4. Re:Behold the power of a SLAPP suit! by dodomeister · · Score: 1

      There's a line. They crossed it. They have, in fact, crossed it repeatedly. They are suffering the consequences.
      Uhm, who's suffering here?
      The consequences for the Yes Men: a widely noticed activity, mirror sites all over the world, some media echo.
      Quite a success.

      The consequences for DOW: some more people now remember Bhopal - and make the connection to DOW (instead of just remembering the long gone Union Carbide).
      Not really a success.

      The consequences for the ISP: interrupted service, legal hazzles ...
      The consequences for clients of ISP: interrupted service, bouncing email ...
      A disaster.

      Thing.net could have avoided this problem by taking care of their own problems.
      What own problems? Please share your knowledge.

  16. RTMark are a bunch of spammers by sulli · · Score: 2

    Fuck 'em. If they can't play by reasonable rules of good behavior, I have no sympathy when they end up being smacked down for (in this case) fraudulent misrepresentation of their opponents.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:RTMark are a bunch of spammers by dodomeister · · Score: 1

      This is not about RTMark.

      This about their service provider thing.net and all its clients being held hostage by DOW and Verio (the latter playing host to quite a bit of real spammers).

  17. Time to boycott Verio? by Travoltus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Are there other providers who will not take action against a hosted site unless pushed by a court order?

    I know newsguy.com is one such provider.

    I have a site with Verio. If I know of another site with php3/4, perl and mysql, and which will not take any action without a court order, I'm there and Verio is out another customer.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:Time to boycott Verio? by shdragon · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact there is. IOCOM http://www.io.com does. If you want to know the really interesting story behind WHY they take this stance see thisand some more in-depth info here.

      I've been with them since roughly 1996/97 and I have NO complaints...shell access, linux friendly, etc etc...

      --
      "...we dont care about the economics; we just want to be able to hack great stuff."
    2. Re:Time to boycott Verio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing.net isnt down you can host your stuuf there.

    3. Re:Time to boycott Verio? by dodomeister · · Score: 1

      try thing.net.
      According to Verio, they have a track record ;-)

  18. No problem now by drew_kime · · Score: 2

    As of 12:30 pm EST the offending site http://Dow-Chemical.com now points to http://www.dow.com/homepage/index.html anyway. So apparently there is nothing to worry about. Satiric criticism is erased by domain hijacking and no-one has to be the wiser.

    --
    Nope, no sig
    1. Re:No problem now by uncoveror · · Score: 2

      Right now, http://dow-chemical.com/ is not coming up. Slashdotted?

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  19. Except that... by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 2

    I feel sorry for anyone who fell for the parody site (after reading the whole thing), but I don't think it was out of line. If someone was misled by the parody site, then they're not careful readers. They have been trolled. They have lost. Have a nice day.

    I thought it was very very funny. In a doubleunplusgood funny sorta way. I've got to give credit to the writer. S/he has pegged the corporate doubletalk that makes up so much corporate communication.

    I do think the site should have a 'parody' tag down at the bottom.

    --
    My father is a blogger.
    1. Re:Except that... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      I feel sorry for anyone who fell for the parody site (after reading the whole thing), but I don't think it was out of line. If someone was misled by the parody site, then they're not careful readers.

      Remember, this isn't just about the site. It's about the press release that these guys sent out with Dow's name all over it. There was absolutely nothing about this press release that even implied that it was a parody. It looked like a perfectly genuine, if insanely horrible, corporate statement. The only clue that it's not completely genuine is the fact that the press release refers to a past president of Dow as if he were the current president, and I only know that because I looked it up while fact-checking the release. The name "Panaline Boneril" sounds suspiciously like an anagram, but what the heck is "a plebeian or Lenin" supposed to mean?

      This is clearly defamation and fraud. Have a look. (This copy was emailed to the BBC's "Breakfast" show, and was included in the lawyer's correspondence to Verio.)

      From: Dow Chemical Corporation [SMTP:press@dow-chemical.com]
      Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 9:49 AM
      To: Breakfast R5L <breakfast@bbc.co.uk>
      Subject: DOW ADDRESSES BHOPAL OUTRAGE, EXPLAINS POSITION

      December 3, 2002

      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
      Contact: mailto:press@dow-chemical.com

      DOW ADDRESSES BHOPAL OUTRAGE, EXPLAINS POSITION
      Company responds to activist concerns with concrete action points

      In response to growing public outrage over its handling of the Bhopal disaster's legacy, Dow Chemical (http://www.dow-chemical.com) has issued a statement explaining why it is unable to more actively address the problem.

      "We are being portrayed as a heartless giant which doesn't care about the 20,000 lives lost due to Bhopal over the years," said Dow President and CEO Michael D. Parker. "But this just isn't true. Many individuals within Dow feel tremendous sorrow about the Bhopal disaster, and many individuals within Dow would like the corporation to admit its responsibility, so that the public can then decide on the best course of action, as is appropriate in any democracy.

      "Unfortunately, we have responsibilities to our shareholders and our industry colleagues that make action on Bhopal impossible. And being clear about this has been a very big step."

      On December 3, 1984, Union Carbide--now part of Dow--accidentally killed 5,000 residents of Bhopal, India, when its pesticide plant sprung a leak. It abandoned the plant without cleaning it up, and since then, an estimated 15,000 more people have died from complications, most resulting from chemicals released into the groundwater.

      Although legal investigations have consistently pinpointed Union Carbide as culprit, both Union Carbide and Dow have had to publicly deny these findings. After the accident, Union Carbide compensated victims' families between US$300 and US$500 per victim.

      "We understand the anger and hurt," said Dow Spokesperson Bob Questra. "But Dow does not and cannot acknowledge responsibility. If we did, not only would we be required to expend many billions of dollars on cleanup and compensation--much worse, the public could then point to Dow as a precedent in other big cases. 'They took responsibility; why can't you?' Amoco, BP, Shell, and Exxon all have ongoing problems that would just get much worse. We are unable to set this precedent for ourselves and the industry, much as we would like to see the issue resolved in a humane and satisfying way."

      Shareholders reacted to the Dow statement with enthusiasm. "I'm happy that Dow is being clear about its aims," said Panaline Boneril, who owns 10,000 shares, "because Bhopal is a recurrent problem that's clogging our value chain and ultimately keeping the share price from expressing its full potential. Although a real solution is not immediately possible because of Dow's commitments to the larger industry issues, there is new hope in management's exceptional new clarity on the matter."

      "It's a slow process," said Questra. "We must learn bit by bit to meet this challenge head-on. For now, this means acknowledging that much as it pains us, our prime responsibilities are to the people who own Dow shares, and to the industry as a whole. We simply cannot do anything at this moment for the people of Bhopal."

      Dow Chemical is a chemical products and services company devoted to bringing its customers a wide range of chemicals. It furnishes solutions for the agriculture, electronics, manufacturing, and oil and gas industries, including well-known products like Styrofoam, DDT, and Agent Orange, as well as lesser-known brands like Inspire, Retain, Eliminator, Quash, and Woodstalk. For more on the Bhopal catastrophe, please visit Dow at http://www.dow-chemical.com/.

      # 30 #

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:Except that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There was was absolutely nothing about this press release that even implied that it was a parody."
      Except, of course, the content.

      "The only clue that it's not completely genuine is the fact that the press release refers to a past president of Dow as if he were the current president"
      Except, of course, the content.

      "This is clearly defamation and fraud."
      If a George W. Bush double appears on SNL and declares war on NYC, it's neither defamatory nor fraud either.
      It's called a parody.

  20. They used Reamweaver by stu42j · · Score: 1

    They used a program called Reamweaver which is designed to "instantly 'funhouse-mirror' anyone's website, copying the real-time "look and feel" but letting you change any words, images, etc. that you choose."

    There was a story about it on NPR's "On the Media".

    1. Re:They used Reamweaver by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2

      Cool! Thanks for the info.

      Now to jack with a couple of friends' webpages....

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
  21. You've Got It Backwards, As Usual by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

    > DOW is now using the DMCA to threaten Verio,

    No. Dow is using copyright law to threaten Verio. The DMCA is forcing them to give Verio an opportunity to remove the putatively infringing material and thereby avoid any penalties. In the absence of the DMCA Dow could sue and possibly collect damages even if Verio took the material down as soon as they were notified. This would mean, of course, that no ISP would ever let anyone put any parodies up at all.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:You've Got It Backwards, As Usual by dodomeister · · Score: 1

      so you think the DMCA is there to protect ISPs and the people creating parodies???

      Quite entertaining idea. Ever heard of somebody successfully suing the USPS for transporting Anthrax letters and the Unabombers mail? Ryder for renting a van to T.McVeigh?

      Unfortunately, the idea of of the carrier not being allowed to be interested in what he's carrying got lost somewhere in the last couple of years.

  22. Re:Dow - A Chemical Company on the Global Playgrou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many died anually before and after the ban? Those numbers might actually mean something, even if they aren't as good for trolling.

  23. Re:Dow - A Chemical Company on the Global Playgrou by uncoveror · · Score: 2

    And if DDT had remained legal, 60,000,000 people would still have died of Malaria. It was no better or worse than other pesticides at controlling mosquitoes, but Bald Eagles, and many other species of birds would now be extinct.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  24. Now that's funny! by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 2

    This one is quite artfully done. But comeon, there are a couple of bits that are obviously spoofs:

    "because Bhopal is a recurrent problem that's clogging our value chain and ultimately keeping the share price from expressing its full potential."

    "We are unable to set this precedent for ourselves and the industry, much as we would like to see the issue resolved in a humane and satisfying way."

    "well-known products like Styrofoam, DDT, and Agent Orange"

    "Although legal investigations have consistently pinpointed Union Carbide as culprit, both Union Carbide and Dow have had to publicly deny these findings."

    I assert that a careful reader would know this was a parody. Granted, a junior production assistant at the BBC might not get it, and some slashdotters may have been trolled. But we all know we hardly read the comments (much less the articles).

    Sadly, there are very few careful readers. I also concede that both of these articles should have the word parody on them. Since they did not, I think Dow has a case.

    Interestingly enough, the stunt may have worked. I've been involved with the environment, hazardous chemicals, and public safety for my entire career, and I've learned more about Bhopal in the last day than I have in the last 10 years.

    --
    My father is a blogger.
  25. Dow's Dec 3, 2002 Statement about Bohpal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.dowethics.com/r/about/corp/bhopal.htm

    As you can see, it is not about acceting responsibility, rather, it is about preserving shareholder value.

    Of note: It is nice to know that they ponied up $300 -$500 per victim to their family as compensation.

    If they killed someone's dog in America it would be more than that.

    Amazing.

  26. Re:Dow - A Chemical Company on the Global Playgrou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're either deliberately lying or completely misinformed. If DDT is no better at controlling mosquitos than available alternatives why is it that those countries that have continued using DDT have nearly eradicated malaria while those using other pesticides have seen their mortality rates attributable to malaria skyrocket since ceasing DDT use ??

  27. Huh? What? by Eggplant62 · · Score: 2

    How does the DMCA apply here? This is a parody site, no one's using anything computer-related to break into Dow's intellectual property. What a travesty of justice. I hope Thing.net will pursue this idiocy.

    The DMCA is just pure corporate evil.

  28. Verio's already tarnished. by KC7GR · · Score: 2

    Verio's been hosting spammers and spamvertized web sites for so bloody long that it's going to take a miracle to un-tarnish their rep in the eyes of Lord only knows how many SysAdmins (myself included!)

    This is just a small sample. No fewer than 43 known (and sometimes infamous) spammers hosted by Verio. Need I say more?

    --

    Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

    Blue Feather Technologies

    1. Re:Verio's already tarnished. by dodomeister · · Score: 1

      unfortunately, in the twisted minds of some of our well paid off lawmakers, spam IS free speech (and parodies are NOT).

  29. wrong headline here: b'cse Verio silences the ISP by dodomeister · · Score: 1

    Should probably read: DOW threatens Verio, Verio silences ISP of activists.

    Instead of shutting down a single activist site (which would have been bad enough), they killed a whole network in some kind of a legal Denial of Service attack.

    In this process, they disturbed the businesses of various clients of thing.net, destroyed some digital artworks and disabled for several hours my private email account (naughty, naughty; but should I sue DOW and Verio for my bounced love mails?).

    Better be aware: your ISP could be the next target of some corporate DoS attack. So you better open up an AOL account, just in case ...

  30. Re:Dow - A Chemical Company on the Global Playgrou by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    Why is it that some countries still use asbestos?
    It's just common practice, and really has no bearing on it's effectiveness.

    A good layman roundup of facts can be found here about DDT: http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/mom/ddt/ddt.html

    It's alot like using gasoline to get rid of a wasp nest: Great for an immediate solution, but a *huge* mess later. (and an even bigger mess if you do it incorrectly)

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!